Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Northampton Extension Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Middlesex County Council Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered. Amendments made. Bill to be read the Third time.

Salvation Army Bill,

As amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next.

Alexander Scott's Hospital Order Confirmation Bill. [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (WEST SURREY WATER) BILL,

"to confirm a scheme made by the Minister of Health under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, relating to the West Surrey Water Company," presented by Mr. Greenwood; ordered under Section I (9) of the Act to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 148.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether it is proposed to take any additional business on Monday?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy): On Monday, 11th May, in addition to the business which was announced on Thursday last—that is the Vote for the Department of Overseas Trade—it is proposed to put down the Vote for the Colonial Office in order to permit of a discussion on the conditions of mui tsai in Hong Kong.

Orders of the Day — REGISTRATION OF UNSATISFIED JUDGMENTS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. TINNE: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Under Section 183 of the County Court Act, 1888, judgments for amounts of over £10, if not satisfied within 21 days, are registered. This register then becomes available and, if a trader is asked for credit, he can ascertain—if he acts with common prudence by going to his trade protection society or to Bradstreets, Stubbs, or some other organisation which exists for the purpose—whether the man who asks for credit is worthy to receive it. In these circumstances, he can avoid losses by not giving credit to those who are not worthy of it. On the other hand, there are certain local courts, such as the Liverpool Court of Passage, the Derby Court of Passage, and the Salford Court of Hundreds and also the High Court itself, where there is no such register kept of unsatisfied judgments and in the bigger actions a man may have judgment given against him, but no register is kept of that judgment, and the trader who is asked to give credit may not be able to find out whether the man who asks it has such a judgment against him or not.
In those circumstances, a case might arise such as one which was mentioned at the annual general meeting of the National Association of Trade Protection Societies last year. That was a case in which a firm which gave credit on the 25th of the month was confronted on the 3rd of the following month with an intimation that a meeting of creditors was being called. There were no county court judgments registered and no debentures, but it transpired that there were no fewer than seven unsatisfied judgments in the High Court running into several thousands of pounds. It ought not to be possible for a situation like that to arise. When a tradesman is asked for credit, and when he uses the ordinary ideas of prudence and seeks information, it should be available for him, and the big man ought not to be able to "get away with
it" where the poor man in similar circumstances would undoubtedly have his credit stopped.
This Bill was brought in under the Ten Minutes' Rule on 18th November last. It is now in print, and has been in the hands of the Members of the House for some time. Since it was brought in, the Incorporated Law Society in Liverpool have been in communication with me and have asked that certain points in it should be rectified. The particular point to which they drew attention was that, in the High Court, numerous actions are brought involving no actual payment and that if judgment in such an action was not complied with, it would not in any way affect the financial credit of the parties. It is proposed to meet that objection by a small Amendment which is now in manuscript and if the House is good enough to give the Bill a Second Reading to-day that Amendment will be introduced at a later stage, as I understand it satisfies the Incorporated Law Society, and, I hope, that it may also satisfy the Attorney-General.
The other point which they raised was in regard to the question of who is to make the rules of administration. Of course in regard to courts not under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor, if there is no one appointed for that purpose that matter might raise some difficulty but it is I believe possible to overcome the difficulty by another small Amendment, namely, after the words "Lord Chancellor" to insert the words "or other competent authority," and, if it can be done in four words, that is a matter which ought to be dealt with quickly. There is no reason to prolong the agony by making further remarks. The point is a fairly plain one and I believe that there is general sympathy in all parts of the House with this attempt to correct an anomaly. Indeed I think it only needs to be pointed out in order that it may be put right. It has not been dealt with up to now, I think, mainly for the reason of congestion of business, and if I can secure the sympathy of the House for this Bill I can assure hon. Members that outside the House there are many who will be extremely grateful. Lastly, I may be permitted to make a personal acknowledgment to the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) for his kindness
in helping me to bring this matter before the House. The Bill is entirely a nonparty one, and one with which I think the House will find themselves in sympathy.

Mr. FRANK SMITH: Before the hon. Member concludes, may I ask him whether his proposal is to remove all registration of judgments in the small cases, and to make them the same as the larger cases are at present, or whether he asks that the same treatment shall in future be meted out in the larger cases, as is now meted out in the smaller cases?

Mr. TINNE: That is exactly the purpose. I want the big man to be treated in the same way as the small man is treated now.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I beg to second the Motion.
This is a small Measure, but it is one which will be warmly welcomed by the commercial community and one which is long overdue. I do not know why this discrepancy or anomaly between High Court practice and county court practice has been allowed to go on for nearly 40 years, unless it be that in the old days the trader was supposed to be easily familiar with the judgments of the High Court—as those judgments attracted considerable attention—whereas he would not be supposed to have that familiarity with the judgments of the county court. Since the passing of the County Court Act, however, cases in the High Court have multiplied and it is much more difficult now for the trader to acquaint himself with the judgments, of the High Court than it was formerly. But, whatever were the reasons for this discrepancy, there is every reason now, why it should be removed. It is certain that the law never intended the small trader to be placed at a disadvantage, compared with the large trader. It has never been the intention of this House that the large trader should escape while the small trader fell easily within the scope of the investigation of trade protection societies. In these difficult commercial days it is more necessary than ever to examine carefully the credit given in commercial transactions. This Measure will make it more easy to do so and will redress the balance between the small man and the big man.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): As the Mover and Seconder of the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill have pointed out, it is a non-party Measure and this is one of those occasions on which we are in the fortunate position of being able to consider a Bill on its merits. On the general abstract principle, as to whether I think that a register of unsatisfied judgments would be a useful thing to have, I say that I do think so. On the other hand, I want to point out the very real difficulties which are inherent in the question, and I want to point out also that I think this Bill has not attempted to grapple with those difficulties and that, so far as this Bill is concerned, I regret to say that I think the whole scheme is unworkable. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham) asked why there was a difference between the county court procedure and high court procedure in this matter. On that, the whole difficulty rests. Ever since at least 1888, and I think from an earlier time, the county court has taken complete seizin over a case, from the beginning until payment. Payment of a judgment in the county court has to be made through the county court, that is to say, subject to an exception which I will mention presently. If a plaintiff recovers a judgment in the county court for, say, £15, the defendant has to pay the £15 into court. The only exception is one that gives the judge of a county court liberty to dispense with that procedure. The Act of 1888 provides that moneys shall be paid into court, but the following exception has been introduced by Section 18 of the County Court Act, 1911:
Where a judgment or order has been obtained in a county court for a sum of money and no order is made as to payment by instalments, the money shall, if the court so directs, be paid by one party to the other party or his solicitor instead of being paid into court as required by Section 105 of the principal Act.
The Section goes on to order that such judgment, that is to say, a judgment in which the judge has so directed that the money be not paid into court, shall not be registered if, before the expiration of 21 days, proof is given to the registrar by affidavit that the judgment has been satisfied. It does not in practice apply in a large number of cases. In by far the greater number of cases
to-day, a county court judgment is satisfied by the moneys being paid through the court. The result is that the county court knows beyond all question whether a judgment has been satisfied, and in exceptional cases, where the judge so directs, if a defendant pays, he has to produce an affidavit and go either by himself or through his solicitor to the county court and satisfy the county court that the money has been paid. I say, therefore, that though I am in favour of a register of unsatisfied judgments, you may call the spirits from the vasty deep, but the question is, Will they come when you summon them? It is quite easy to say, "Let us have a register of unsatisfied judgments," but the question is, What machinery are you going to have to secure that register?
I want the House to realise that at the present time the High Court, quite unlike the county court, has never had, save in exceptional cases, any machinery for payment into court, and the officials of the High Court have not the least idea whether a judgment has been satisfied or not. They have not the machinery for payment into court, nor have they any machinery corresponding to Section 18 of the County Court Act, 1911. To enable this to be done needs an alteration and a remoulding really of a Section of the Judicature Act. This Bill does not provide for that at all, and I very much doubt indeed, though it is not for me to pronounce, whether an amendment of the Judicature Act to make this possible would be within the scope and Title of the Bill.
Then there is this further point to be considered: The necessity for a defendant in a county court judgment, if he does not pay something into court, to satisfy the registrar that the judgment has been satisfied is sometimes rather a troublesome thing to do. He has to provide an affidavit and so forth. The distinction between county court procedure and High Court procedure is this, that in the High Court you may have a defendant in, say, Cornwall and a plaintiff in Cumberland. The plaintiff gets a judgment under Order 14. A large proportion of the judgments are obtained under Order 14, and what happens? The defendant thereupon, having got this judgment against him, has to satisfy the High Court in some way or other, by
means of affidavit or instructions to solicitors, that the judgment has in fact been satisfied. I am not saying that all these points are insuperable difficulties, but I am saying that I certainly, from my limited experience, should not care to pronounce upon all these difficulties without having this matter very thoroughly investigated. Though I know enough about the Incorporated Law Society of Liverpool to value its opinion, perhaps I have a prejudice in favour of asking the opinion of the Law Society in London, but I should not care to embark upon this sort of investigation without that.
It may be said, "Why do you not set up a committee to investigate the matter?" Well, we have been a bit criticised for having too many committees already. Particulars were given the other day, and there are certainly over 50 committees and more than 30 that have not yet reported. I rather hesitate, unless we are very much pressed, to advise my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to start another committee for this matter. We have already got—I am not sure that to say a bellyful would be Parliamentary—quite enough committees to go on with for the time being, and I would suggest this to the House: As I have said, I think there is certainly a case made out which indicates that a register of unsatisfied judgments would be a useful thing to the trading community, and so far I am entirely in agreement with the mover and seconder of the Motion for the Second Beading. Secondly, I want their help and the help of the House, and I should like the guidance of the profession, which would mean the Law Societies, as to what is the best means to provide machinery to enable that register to be compiled.
I would point out again that the machinery is in existence in the county courts, but there is no corresponding machinery in the High Court at all. You would have to constitute the machinery, and then you would nave to consider to what class of cases it was going to apply. Clause 1 of the Bill is drawn almost exactly to follow Section 183 of the County Court Act, 1888, except that in the county court a register of every judgment entered in the court for the sum of £10 and upwards is the qualification, and you would have obviously to draw
very carefully a list of judgments that had to be entered, because, first of all, I am presuming that there would be some limit of money. There may be a judgment for £5 in the High Court. Such a judgment would not be registered in the county court, and I presume that it is not desired that it should be registered in the High Court, but equally the difficulty which the Law Society of Liverpool pointed out to the hon. Member applies. A very large number of judgments in the High Court—I have no statistics—do not deal with money at all, such as actions for declarations, which cannot be brought into the county court, but are frequently brought in the High Court. How would you register them? Injunctions—how are you going to register them? Again, I have not the remotest idea what the difficulties are. Anybody who embarks upon this business without getting the very best expert opinion, is obviously seeking trouble.
I welcome this Bill, although I think it cannot possibly be amended to enable us to have the machinery on the lines suggested. I cannot give an undertaking. I have no authority to do so. I do not think it is reasonable to appoint another Committee to consider this matter at the present moment. I am quite prepared to give this matter informal consideration, to see whether there is a way in which these difficulties may be surmounted, and to consider whether the disadvantage, if disadvantage there be—and there obviously is—of setting up machinery compelling a defendant to notify the Courts when a judgment has been satisfied, outweighs the disadvantages of not having the register. We could work out some of the difficulties, and on a future occasion, and at the proper time, they could be committed to expert opinion. I am bound to say I cannot recommend the House to pass this Measure as it is. I am not unsympathetic towards it, but it seems to be really ineffective. After the undertaking I have given, I hope the hon. Member will not press his Bill to a Division.

Major LLEWELLIN: Those of us who have our names on the back of this Bill will appreciate the very careful consideration that the learned Attorney-General has given to it, and also the reason that
he has given to the House. Obviously, there are further matters in the procedure of the High Court, in contradistinction to the County Court, which those of us who have had something to do with the drafting of this Measure had not visualised. Probably he is quite right in saying that those who belong to the profession of the Bar do not know as much about the machinery of how judgments are registered, and things of that sort, as do solicitors. As the learned Attorney-General said, it is necessary to have this Bill, particularly in view of all the facts that he himself mentioned. He contrasted judgment in the High Court with the local judgment. If you get a judgment in the High Court, it is much more difficult for any trader, say, a trader in the North of England, to find out whether that judgment has been registered, and particularly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham) said, with the increase of the procedure under Order 14. One point that the learned Attorney-General made, was, as a matter of fact, in process of being met by an Amendment. It was proposed to amend the Bill, in order to make it apply only to unsatisfied judgments for the payment of money without stay of execution, which would completely keep out from the ambit of this Bill such delinquencies as injunctions, to which the learned Attorney-General referred.
I think there would be a way of getting this improvement that we all desire within the bounds of this Bill, because the Regulations are to be such as are laid down by the Lord Chancellor or other competent authority. We should thus give him power to make Regulations which would get over a large number of the difficulties to which the learned Attorney-General referred, although that might be a bad case of delegated legislation, to which a large number of us are opposed. I do not know what is the opinion of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of this Bill, but I would suggest that probably the best course is that, with the learned Attorney-General's assistance, we should try to go into the matter much more fully and find out whether, before the next Session comes, we could get an agreed Bill, based on the experience of the Law Society and the authority of the Law Department which
the learned Attorney-General has at his disposal. We could get a Bill that really meets the case. We want to do this matter thoroughly and well, and to have a Bill on the Statute Book that will work, and that will bring about the results that we all require.
The first Measure we brought in in 1852 to register judgment in the County Courts, and thus there have been 80 or 90 years in which this difference of procedure has been in existence between the two courts. It is quite time that the procedure was altered. If you get a large judgment against you, you can get away with it, under the present procedure, while if it is a small one, up to £10, then it is registered against you. It is far more important, where the Judgment is against a big trader, to have the large Judgment registered, and, if necessary, to let the small ones not be registered in the way in which they have been, under the County Courts. I think we are all obliged to the learned Attorney-General for the help he has given us. I do not know what line my hon. Friend feels disposed to take. I think I had better merely sit down and leave it to him.

Mr. TINNE: In view of what the learned Attorney-General said I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING RESTRICTION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. WISE: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill seeks to bring into relation with modern conditions old laws that have long stood on the Statute Book, and that, to a very large extent, are mostly unobserved. The House will have in mind the discussion which took place two or three weeks ago, on the related subject of the Sunday opening of cinemas. It was reported to us, that in regard to amusements as well as in regard to business, that the laws which operate in this country were mostly passed in a period when circumstances were entirely different from what they are at the present moment, and that they badly need amendment. The law in relation to the opening
of shops, the key law, was the Sunday-Observance Act, 1677, many of whose provisions are still apparently in operation, since they have never been repealed; but most of them are entirely ignored. It enjoins "propriety on the subjects of this realm", but does not seem to prescribe any penalty if that admonition be not observed, but it did require the forfeiture of wares, merchandise or goods exposed for sale on Sundays, and that such goods should be sold by the local authorities for the benefit of the poor. It penalised the drovers and the butchers who travelled on Sundays and forbade any use of boats on Sunday, and, if the value of the goods, in certain cases in which the Act imposed fines for the forfeiture of goods, was not sufficient to pay the fine, the Act condemned the unfortunate delinquent to spend two hours in the stocks to expiate his crime. On the other hand, Sunday travellers were regarded as free sport for any Dick Turpin or other robber, because it was quite impossible to bring an action against or prosecute anyone who robbed a Sunday traveller. Going a little further than one would have expected, it made it illegal to serve any writ on Sunday.
The Act now has no kind of relation to modern conditions, and in fact, save in particular places and in exceptional circumstances, it is not in force at all. The result is that all over the country in the last two or three decades, since it became clear that the Act was not really operative, there has been a steady and disconcerting growth in the opening of the smaller shops. In some of the London boroughs, 90 per cent. of the general smaller shops are open for a part or all of Sunday. That is true, apparently, in Kensington and areas like Hoxton, and some parts even of Chelsea and Westminster. It is not merely the case in London, but the practice is steadily extending, particularly in the poorer areas, in all the provincial towns. There is no question that the tendency is increasing to open shops on Sunday, not the bigger shops, but the small general shops run by one man and his wife and members of the family. There is equally no question that that presses very hard on the unfortunate shopkeeper. Many of them have told me how terribly worrying, and how destructive of physical and mental rest, is the constant necessity of having
to sit in the shop or within reach of the bell, not only for six days of the week, but for a part or the whole of Sundays.
It is easy to say that they can shut if they please, and that there is nothing to prevent them from putting up their shutters and going off like other people to church or to reasonable recreation in the fresh air in the country, but anyone familiar with the circumstances in which the small one-man traders carry on their business in the back streets of the big industrial towns, knows how near the poverty line they are, how precarious is their livelihood, and how constantly obsessed they are by the chance that, if they do not open, somebody else will and will get customers whom they can ill afford to lose. The Shop Hours Act dealt with the big shops a decade or two ago and required that shop assistants should be given their proper rest, but the early closing laws do not apply to the closing of shops on Sunday, and do not assist this particular class of rather unfortunate people for whom I am appealing.
This Bill proposes to repeal the existing Sunday Observance Act, and starts off with a general Clause closing all shops on Sunday. It recognises that there are classes of shops which are dealt with under other legislation and which for special reasons require to be open on Sundays. There are, for example, licensed premises, and the sale of intoxicating liquor, which are dealt with under the general licensing legislation, and this is not the place in which to deal with them. It is plain also that the sale of refreshment for consumption on the premises, and railway station refreshment rooms are proper subjects for exemption. The same applies to medicines, to the sale of newspapers, and to repair outfits for motorists and cyclists. The exemptions on the First Schedule are of general application. In the Second Schedule the Bill provides for adjusting variations of the general provisions to local circumstances by giving local authorities power under proper precautions and after proper inquiries to make exemption orders permitting certain classes of shops to be open for a limited number of hours.
It applies the same kind of principle to the opening of shops such as bakers,
dairymen, chemists, confectioners and tobacconists that the House approved a week or two ago in the case of cinemas. No local authority is under any obligation to make any such order, and any such order will apply to a specific district and can be subject to such exemptions and exceptions to meet local circumstances as the local authority may decide. If they decide that two hours to be permitted in the morning in the case of chemists or provision dealers, are too long or unnecessary, they may leave it out altogether. What they cannot do is to permit opening for longer than the short period prescribed.
Another provision in the Bill adjusts the procedure to special circumstances. There is the case, for example, of the Jews in certain areas of East London. As is well known, it is customary to have businesses open on Sunday, and it used to be customary, though often the custom is no longer observed, for such businesses to be closed on Saturday. The Bill makes exceptions for Jewish traders under proper precautions, and under the condition that if they open on Sunday the order which will be made by a local authority which permits that, must require that their businesses are closed on Saturday. It provides also for the connected case of street markets. I believe that there are in London 52 street markets. Many of them are in the limited areas where the Jews carry on their trade, but some are not. The Bill requires that any orders of general operation shall apply to street markets as well as to shops, and that any orders which are made by the local authority shall apply to trading carried on otherwise than in shops as well as to shops, though it makes a special exception in the case of newspapers.
In view of the criticism of this Bill which has been raised in the past, it is important to note that it deals with the case of shop assistants. It was said when this Bill was before the House in an earlier form, that it might prejudice the position of shop assistants. To meet that situation, a Clause has been inserted by which no shops will be entitled under the provision of the exceptions stated in the Bill to open on Sunday unless all the shop assistants employed on that day have received a holiday of not less
than one unbroken day during the previous six days, in addition to any statutory half-holiday which they are entitled to receive under other Acts. That meets the view of those of my hon. Friends on this side of the House who objected to the previous Bill on the ground that it might adversely affect the interests of shop assistants, and I submit that this Bill completely safeguards their position. That Clause will make it very difficult indeed for any shop, except the small one-man shop, to take advantage of the exemption orders by which it might open on a Sunday. It achieves the main purpose of the Bill, which is to stop the tendency of the multiple shops, particularly in the butchers' trade and the bakers', in some districts to open their shops on seven days a week, under the pressure of street markets.
This is not, in the party sense of the word, a controversial Bill. It is a Bill which circumstances as they are developing to-day render necessary, and it is a corollary of the decision the House took a week or two ago in regard to cinemas. In the discussion then the point was made that if cinemas were opened shops would be opened, and that gradually the circle of Sunday trading and Sunday work would grow. This Bill would prevent that. If Parliament proceeds, as I think it is the desire of the majority that it should proceed, with the amendment of the law dealing with cinemas and certain other forms of amusement, it is necessary to do something on these lines in the case of shops. The details of the Measure can be threshed out in Committee, where, indeed, its provisions can be correlated with those of one or two other Bills which have been passed in the last Session or two or which are now under consideration. I submit that it will be a very useful piece of legislation, and will be of value to tens of thousands of small shopkeepers who, for various reasons, have a difficult and troublesome time, and lead a hard and exiguous life, and I hope that it can be passed with the general approval of all parties.

Mr. HOFFMAN: I beg to second the Motion.
It affords me great pleasure to do this, because I had to oppose the Measure when it was introduced last year. The
objections which I raised at that time have now been removed, and those who are particularly concerned with the general shop assistants of the country are in favour of the Bill. Certainly all the federations of grocers in the country are in favour of it, and drapers and other traders also. I have received a telegram from the Scottish Grocers Federation stating that they strongly support the Bill and asking for the inclusion of Scotland. The Bill is another attempt to bring some order out of the chaos which exists in the distributive trades to-day. The case for it is overwhelming. Sunday trading is on the increase. There is not a part of the country to which I go, not even excepting South Wales, where attention is not drawn by publicists to the increasing number of shops open on Sundays and the difficulties this occasions to those who are looking after the spiritual life of the people. In Newport no fewer than 500 shops are open on Sundays, and in Cardiff something like 1,000. An investigation carried through by the London County Council showed that in Hampstead, Paddington, St. Pancras and part of Marylebone 75 per cent. of confectioners', tobacconists' and barbers' shops were open—the hairdressers' shops, of course, are now closed owing to the Act which was recently passed—and of the fruiterers', greengrocers' and general shops 50 per cent. In Islington and Finsbury, of the general shops in minor streets, 80 per cent. were open. In the eastern district of Wands-worth and Battersea and Lambeth no fewer than 8,000 shops are open on a Sunday.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: All day?

Mr. HOFFMAN: Some of them all day, but most of them part of the day. This Bill tries to deal with the evil in a realistic fashion. Under present circumstances I doubt whether it would be right or proper to close every shop upon a Sunday, allowing no one to open. I know that is an ideal, but we cannot all get our ideals. One must face the fact that in crowded urban areas poor people have no accommodation for storing food in the places where they live—they may have one or two rooms only, in which a number of them are crowded together. They buy their food from day to day. In some cases the man, who is earning
the money, and who is paid day by day, does not bring home the money until late on Saturday night or on Sunday morning. In such areas some means must be found for the poorer people to obtain the victuals which they cannot store in their own homes. This Bill says, therefore, following the precedent which was laid down in the permissive Closing Act, 1904, that local authorities shall have power, with the assent of a two-thirds majority of those concerned, to say that certain classes of shops in the schedule can open for two hours or a little longer. In the past I have objected to this permission, because no provision was made or is to-day made, for those who are employed in shops which open on Sunday.
Let me point out that it is not merely a question of the shop itself being opened for two hours on the Sunday morning. The districts in which the evil occurs are urban districts, so probably the shop assistants live a long distance from where they work. They have to travel in on the Sunday morning, they have to open up the shop and arrange the display of goods, all of which takes time. In the case particularly of perishable goods, like fruit, meat and so on, the display is very important, and takes quite a long time. Then, at the close of the two hours' opening, the assistants have to clear up, and in the case of butchers' and fishmongers' shops there is a great deal of cleaning to be done, and by the time the assistants have travelled back to their homes a great deal of their Sunday has been taken up. Hitherto there has been no protection at all for assistants who are so employed, but this Bill will afford some protection. It says that no assistant shall be employed in one of these shops on a Sunday who is not getting one full day off during the week in addition to the half-day to which he is entitled by statute. It gives the local authority power to regulate the opening of certain shops on the Sabbath day.
I have indicated the tremendous support which this Bill has amongst all those who are organised shop assistants, grocers and other traders. In the last few years we have held very large meetings in all parts of the country in favour of Sunday closing. There are other instances which I will give. For example, there is the
Jewish point of view which has been met in this Bill and in this connection. The "Grocers' Gazette" stated recently that:
These will insist that they shall not be bound to close on Sundays if they do not open on Saturdays, their own Sabbath … In any case I do not think it right that Jews in any trade should be the means of preventing non-Jews from keeping their Sabbath nor that Jews should by keeping their places of business going on Sunday rob the neighbourhood of its Sabbath atmosphere.
That has been put right. As far as the Trade Union Congress is concerned, at Belfast, in 1929, the following Resolution was carried:
In view of the increasing practice of a large number of multiple firms and general stores of bringing to the shop a part or the whole of their staff for work on Sundays, this Congress urges upon the Parliamentary Labour party the great need for some form of protective legislation with the object of securing a weekly unbroken day of rest for all distributive workers.
I have here a letter from a clergyman in South Wales who says:
The appeal from shop assistants is, in the judgment of many of us, a symptom of a reaction that is beginning to make itself articulate in all classes of the community against the madness of modern times in flinging away, on the one hand, and allowing to be filched away on the other, one of the most precious of all our social and national heritages—the day of rest.
One of the Hackney newspapers in October, 1930, reported that:
The Hackney Borough Council agreed to the licensing of Sunday street trading in perishable articles at two markets for an experimental period of one year. The issue of licences is to be confined to those already licensed to trade in Hackney during the week, and no person is to hold licences for more than six days in each week.
12 n.
In this matter I am a realist, and, as far as I can gather, the only objection to the proposals of this Measure comes from the confectionery trade, by which is meant sweetstuff shops. I admit that those shops are a great temptation. I remember as a little boy being given 2d. or 3d. to put in the missionary box when I went to Sunday School, and I am afraid that the red and pink wares of the confectioners tempted me more than once, and I fell, with the result that the missionary box did not get its full contributions. I wonder how many heathen are now going naked and bowing down to wood and stone because of the temptation of sweet shops to the erring Sunday
School youth of the country. Certainly the confectionery trade has a very unsavoury reputation in this matter of closing. It was the confectionery trade, backed up by the wholesale confectioners and manufacturers of the country, which created the agitation for the repeal of D.O.R.A., and which led to this House extending the hours of opening of confectioners' shops from eight o'clock to 9.30 at night, and this House gave no compensation at all in the shape of extra wages for the extra time which those girls were called upon to work. The confectionery trade still resents any attempt to close them down on the Sabbath day. I am not going to be moved by the attitude of the wholesale confectioners in this matter. The only other objections which I have to meet come from the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) who more particularly represents the cooperative movement.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: No, I do not.

Mr. HOFFMAN: Then the hon. Member represents the co-operative employés, and I understand that he is going to object to this Measure, on what grounds I do not know. If the hon. Member is going to object on the grounds that there is a Shops Committee, of which he is a distinguished Member, sitting to deal with this question and has not yet made its report, may I point out that that committee is dealing with hours of employment, and its terms of reference do not cover Sunday trading? [Interruption.] If they do cover Sunday trading as well as conditions of employment I am not aware of it, and, if that be so, I shall be all the more delighted. I remember that in 1912 an attempt was made by the Liberal party in a Bill introduced in that year to deal with the Sunday closing of shops, and they dealt with the question along the lines of general closing, with the exception of special conditions applying to the Jewish population, but, for some reason or other, that part of the Bill was dropped. This Measure deals with the question in a much more realistic way, and I hope it will be supported by hon. Members opposite.
How my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton can oppose this Bill in the
interests of co-operative employés passes my comprehension. After all, this Measure is in the interest of the co-operative movement; they are quite fair employers and they are agreed that all unjust and unfair conditions in respect of their competitors should be removed. This is an attempt to secure uniformity in regard to the hours of Sunday opening, and for that reason I think it ought to have the support of the hon. Member for Westhoughton. If this Measure is being opposed on Sabbatarian grounds, may I point out that a large number of Christian churches are supporting it because they want to have power to regulate Sunday trading in their localities. For these reasons I have much pleasure in seconding the Motion.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
I am opposed to the passage of this Measure into law and I will give very shortly my reasons for opposing it. I confess that I cannot understand hon. Members on this side of the House pleading the cause of shopkeepers. I am taking up this matter from the workers' point of view. I have carefully analysed the provisions of this Bill, and I do not think I ever came across a more loosely-worded Measure during the time I have been a Member of this House. The first Clause would close every shop on Sunday and the next 14 Clauses show how to open them. In fact, this Bill is an impossible Measure, and I am astonished that my hon. Friend has been deluded into believing that it will provide one day's rest in seven for shop assistants. There is a Select Committee now sitting dealing with shop life, and I may remind the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Hoffman) that we have not confined our investigations simply to the question of the hours of labour. We are dealing with conditions of shop life generally. I am a little surprised that my hon. Friend's have been caught in this way. It is assumed that, if a Bill is passed through the House of Commons to provide one day's rest in seven, that object will be attained. But that does not follow. Unless you have some authority to prosecute people who break the law, the law will be broken. Ample evidence as to that has been given before the select
committee, and has already been published. An Act of Parliament is at present on the Statute Book to provide one day's rest in seven for people employed in public houses, but we have been told by a witness employed in a public house that that law is of no avail at all. There is no organisation to enforce the provisions of the law. I can assure my hon. Friend that, with 50,000 private shop assistants organised out of 1,500,000, there will be very little hope of enforcing these provisions if they are passed into law.
Let me now pass to other criticisms that I have to make of this Bill. I do not like the wording of the title of the Bill—" Shops (Sunday Trading Restriction) Bill." It is nothing of the kind. The title of the Bill ought to be, "A Bill to legalise trading on Sundays." Shops are not entitled, under certain laws, to open on Sundays now, but this Bill would make it legal for them to do so. Consequently I say that the title of the Bill is subtle and misleading.
The onus is placed upon the local authority to determine whether shops shall be open on Sundays or not. It may interest Members of the House to learn how local authorities deal with the opening of shops at present. Only this week the Blackpool Corporation arrived at an agreement with regard to the opening of their shops on weekdays. That agreement will show the tendency of the times in relation to the opening of shops. I oppose this Measure in the main because of the tendency of the times to revert to pre-war conditions in regard to the opening of shops. The report says:
The Watch Committee of the Blackpool Corporation have recommended that shops should remain open until 9.30 p.m. from Monday to Friday and 10.30 on Saturday, from Monday, June 29th to Saturday, October 17th, and that fancy goods dealers be allowed to keep open until 11 p.m. on Whit Monday, during August Bank Holiday week, and the Saturday before August Bank Holiday.
I guarantee that if this Bill becomes law, and the Blackpool Corporation pursues its present attitude, all the shops in Blackpool will be open for six months in the year on Sundays as well as on weekdays. There is nothing in this Bill that will safeguard any shop assistant in Blackpool against having to work seven days a week.
I do not oppose this Bill because I am a Sabbatarian. Philosophers and statesmen throughout the ages have determined, I had hoped once for all, that six days' work is sufficient for any man during one week. Wherever men are called upon to work seven days in the week, their wages for the seven days have always been equal to six days' wages. I oppose Sunday labour, therefore, not on Sabbatarian grounds. Some of my hon. Friends, I am afraid have mistaken me. I oppose Sunday trading and Sunday work on human and physical grounds, and those grounds are good enough for me. As I have said, this problem is not a new one. Some of my hon. Friends think that we are travelling to modernity—that we are becoming more modern because we are calling upon everyone to work seven days a week.

Mr. WISE: No!

Mr. DAVIES: I did not say that the hon. Member said so. I said "Some of my hon. Friends." I do not know that he comas into that category at all. As I have said, I oppose this Bill on other grounds. I belong to the largest trade union of distributive workers in this country. We have approximately 110,000 members engaged in the distributive trade, and the whole of them are employed in the co-operative movement. The argument has been put forward this morning that the poorer districts of this country must be catered for by allowing shops to be opened on Sundays to provide them with groceries and fruit and so forth—

Mr. HOFFMAN: Perishable goods.

Mr. DAVIES: No; the Bill includes grocers; the hon. Member had better read the Bill. It refers to bakers and flour confectioners, chemists and druggists, dairymen, fishmongers, greengrocers, fruiterers and florists, grocers and provision dealers, sugar confectioners and tobacconists.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: They may be open for two hours.

Mr. DAVIES: The co-operative movement is at any rate a working-class movement; it caters for the working people of this country; and I have yet to learn that the 6,000,000 co-operators in this country, who are in the main working
folk, have ever asked that the co-operative movement should open its shops on Sundays. The co-operative movement has led the way from the beginning in regard to shorter hours of labour, a weekly half-holiday, and so forth, and there are co-operative societies in the poorest districts in the land who do the whole of their trade in a 44-hour week. I would point out, by the way, that I do not represent the co-operative movement here; I speak for co-operative employés.
I have been asked what difference this Bill would make to the co-operative movement. It would make this difference: The co-operative movement would be entitled to say, if Sunday trading by private traders were legalised, "We cannot compete with these people, and we also must open for two hours on Sunday as well." Consequently, this would affect the co-operative movement very greatly. I think I am right in saying that neither the co-operative movement nor its employés would be willing to support in any way whatever the opening of shops on Sundays. [Interruption.] I am not disputing that there is the question of selling milk; I am dealing with the goods that people can do without on Sundays or can buy on any other day of the week. [Interruption.] The Bill will do away with conditions that we desire should remain.
The argument is employed that the poor shopkeeper must pick up a few shillings on Sunday, but surely there is only so much trade for him to do anyhow. In the main, the people who go shopping on Sundays can make most of their purchases on any other day of the week if they so desire. It is a truism, as I think the bon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) and the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Hoffman) will agree, that if some shops are kept open in this or any other country for every hour of the day and night throughout the week, there would always be somebody coming in to buy something. I have told this story before, but perhaps I may be allowed to repeat it as an illustration. At one period of my life I worked in a shop which closed at 11 on Saturday night, and there were always six ladies who came in at five minutes to 11. We closed at 10, and the same six ladies came in at five minutes to 10. We closed at nine,
we closed at eight, we closed at seven, and they still came at five minutes before closing time. It is a bad habit.
With regard to the case of people who have no storage for their food, I would point out that it pays shopkeepers to sell often and in small quantities, because then their profits are greater. It would be much cheaper for the poorer members of the community to buy less often and in larger quantities. All shopkeepers and shop assistants know that. I would do all that I could to abolish the bad habit of always running into the shop. In this country the shop is fast becoming an institution. We are told, I think, on fairly good authority, that the increase in the number of shop assistants in this country since the war has been about 350,000.

Mr. HOFFMAN: More than that—750,000.

Mr. DAVIES: I will leave it at the figure I have given. I do not know that there are exact figures available. The claims of the community upon shop life nowadays are astonishing.
I object to the Bill on other grounds. The hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) has argued that the municipalities can undertake the task of issuing orders. I know what will happen in one or two municipalities with which I am familiar. If you give the local authority power to determine whether Sunday trading shall be carried on or not, most of the business of the City Council, which meets once a month, will be Sunday trading. Housing, the clearance of slums, public health and all the rest of it will be smothered by the arguments about Sunday trading.
I made a special inquiry recently as to the attitude of the leading trade unionists on the Continent towards the six-day week. They said, "This is what we cannot understand. For half a century we have been fighting for the establishment of the English week-end and, since the War, you in England have apparently been fighting for the Continental Sunday." That is the case in a nutshell. This tendency to open shops is undoubtedly a tendency towards the Continental seven-day week. I am very jealous indeed that people should not be called upon to work every day in the week. If we passed this Measure—
happily there is no chance of it becoming law—the one-man shopkeeper would work every day in the year without a stop. What else can he do? If you give an order from the town council that shops are entitled to open, it is obvious that the one-man shopkeeper will be there every day throughout the year. [Interruption.]
I understand that the hon. Member for Grimsby is going to support the Bill. The other day he introduced a Bill to close all butchers' shops on Sunday. We carried a Measure the other day to close hairdressing shops on Sunday. A conflict is proceeding regularly on the Floor of the House of Commons, one section wanting to close certain establishments on Sunday and the other wanting to open them. There would never have been an argument at all in favour of opening them were it not for the fact that one little shopkeeper is always afraid that another little shopkeeper is going to keep open. [Interruption.] On that principle all you want to do, with 2,500,000 unemployed people, is to allow all the factories and coal mines to be open on Sunday so that one man may steal the other man's job.
I have tried to study the social conditions, the wages and the standard of life of people in other countries, and I am pleased to say that up to now I have found that the standard of life of the working people of this country is among the best. The six-day working week is more universally applied in this country than in any country of which I know, except Iceland. Iceland is a very important country just now. They may have a Republic very shortly. Co-operative Societies' committees always used to tell my trade union officials, "We cannot possibly close at 10 o'clock if the private trader is allowed to open to 11." Once private traders are allowed to sell their goods on Sunday, we shall have no argument at all, unless we oppose this Bill, against the co-operative movement asking that they shall follow suit. [Interruption.] I know the co-operative movement better than the hon. Member does. There are Members of the House who have been on co-operative society committees, and they know full well that the problem in the towns is always, not what the cooperative movement can do of its own
accord, but what it must do in view of what private firms are doing.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: This would help it.

Mr. DAVIES: I am probably thinking in Welsh and the hon. Member is speaking in English.
I know full well the difficulties of selling milk and perishable goods on Sunday. With the growth of cold storage people can manage to do almost anything with perishable goods. But in spite of the increase in the technicalities of cold storage, the demand still comes for the opening of shops on Sunday. The demand for the opening of cinemas and shops on Sunday in a certain town has come from an organisation calling itself the Sunday Freedom League. All the freedom they desire is to sell their wares on Sunday. I want these gentlemen who want to make a profit on Sundays at the expense of the working community to know that we shall do nothing at all to help them. There is a conflict of opinion. Some of our friends will say, "If you give legal sanction to the opening of shops on Sunday, you limit and restrict the hours of trading on Sunday." My argument always has been that it is better for Parliament to say that it is preferable that ten thousand shopkeepers shall break the law by opening on Sunday than that we should legalise the opening of a million shops, because that is what it means under the Bill. The title of the Bill is a misnomer. It does not restrict trade on Sunday. It will legalise the opening of certain shops which are now closed. I therefore oppose the Measure and trust that it will be defeated handsomely.

Major SALMON: This Bill is drawn so widely that I do not think its promoters have given it the consideration that it deserves. As drawn, it really says that a person who may be desirous of going, say, up the river on Sunday, and finds that it is wet, and he cannot go, and wants to send out to buy something to eat, is prohibited from getting it under the Bill. But this is the strange part, that if, on the other hand, you are desirous of having beer, you are entitled to purchase it and take it away, but you are not entitled to purchase ginger ale and take that away. It occurs to me
that very little thought has been given to the details of this Bill. One has only to consider for a moment that only this day week we unanimously agreed upon the desirability of showing all parts of Europe, Central and South America, and indeed all parts of the world, what a fine place England was to visit and what a fine place it was in which to live. Here we are giving consideration to the question of how difficult it should be for any one to make life reasonable on a Sunday. I fail to see that there can be any crime in a person visiting, say, our parks and requiring to obtain there, in the afternoon or in the evening, buns from a stall to take away for friends in the park. I fail to see why it should be an illegal act. They are not allowed to purchase any food except that which is to be consumed upon the premises.
By means of such legislation as this—especially in view of the cry that we have heard up and down the country—"Dora" is really being introduced. For what purpose? It is really going to serve no real object. The Mover of the Second Reading went out of his way to say that the hours that particular foodstuffs might be sold—that is, as provided in the Second Schedule, from 8 till 10 o'clock—are so uneconomic to the little shopkeeper that people would be put at a very great disadvantage, or that they would certainly have to pay much more for the commodities they were purchasing on that particular day.
We have a very fine country, and we have been building, and are building, some beautiful roads. It seems to be unreasonable to suggest, if men or women or their families are travelling by charabanc, say, for a distance of 200 miles and they are desirous, on their journey, of purchasing food to eat en route because they prefer to do it in that way rather than go into cafés, that they should not be permitted to do so. I do not think that this grandmotherly legislation is going to be very good for the people, nor do I believe that the House of Commons, when they are fully seized of some of the absurdities which are bound to arise under the Bill as at present drawn, will agree to such a Measure as this. I hope that the Bill will not be given a Second Beading. It will not help the workers of this country one iota. This is not the way to deal with this important question.
I do not desire—I do not think that anyone desires—to see all the shops of all descriptions in this country open, as has been suggested, nor do I think that the Bill is really going to do what its pro-motors are seeking to do. They would be well advised to wait for the findings of the Committee which is already dealing with the hours of employment. Generally speaking, I hope that the House will not agree to this Measure.

Mr. BROAD: I wish to speak in support of the Bill, which, I think, goes as far as it is possible to go at the moment towards achieving what most of us desire in this country—that all unnecessary work should be cut out on a Sunday, not alone for the benefit of those who happen to be working for wages, but for those who may hold a small business of their own whereby they are trying to get a living. Although I am a very keen co-operator, I think that at the same time even those who are small shopkeepers have some right to be protected against themselves and those of their fellows who are in the same line of business. Reference has been made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) to the fact that there are Acts of Parliament on the Statute Book which would prohibit-all Sunday trading, but they are absolutely ineffective because they have no moral authority to-day, and do not meet the circumstances of our modern times. The Member for Westhoughton in speaking on this Measure seemed almost to repudiate the hon. Member who seconded the Motion as a colleague or as a friend. In his advocacy of what he called the full Sabbatarian point of view, he appeared to be so confused that I wondered whether professional rivalry, rather than his bad habit of thinking in Welsh had not overcome his judgment. At all events, it is no commendation of the Welsh language if that is the kind of argument he uses.
He spoke of the facilitis of cold storage. Think of the idea of having an electric refrigerator in a one-room tenement in which such a big proportion of our people have to live to-day. I want to know something of the conditions of the people in the very poor districts whose living very often is casually made, and who never know what money they may have to spend from one day to the
other. The idea of storing food in their homes is almost ridiculous when five, six or seven people live in one small room in the heat of the summer weather. My hon. Friend would seem to have studied the conditions in other countries better than he has studied the conditions in this country when he says that those people can quite conveniently buy their food during the week. It is almost impossible to do so in those districts, and it is a very big proportion of our population which is living in one or two room tenements to-day, to our shame be it said. I have spent some Sundays in shops in a very poor locality with friends in order to see the conditions of the people. I was struck, as I spent the whole day there, by the fact that although a friend of mine opened his shop for two or three hours in the morning, during the whole of the day there were knocks on his door and he was asked to provide people with food. When I found the same children coming twice and three times in the day for a pennyworth of bread, I said that I could not understand the position at all. He said, "You have not yet understood how the people in this district live. That child is the son of a widow who has many other children. My shop has to be that woman's pantry. Those people are always hungry, and if they get in a day's supply of food it would be eaten at the one meal."
Those are the conditions in some of those districts, and this sort of thing is within the knowledge of all those who live in the poorer districts. Therefore, to meet modern requirements, there must be some restrictions. Just as the hairdressers, particularly the small proprietor hairdressers, were very glad to assist in pushing forward the Sunday closing of hairdressers' shops, so the great mass of small shopkeepers, whose lives are so full with the petty details of their business that they can take no part in politics, will bless this Bill if it becomes an Act of Parliament, because it will give them some opportunity of freedom at least on one day or part of one day in the week, which they have not at the present time. I am much surprised that the Bill has not had a campaign in its support such as we had in regard to the Bill for Sunday opening of cinemas from those
who profess to be anxious for the English Sunday.
In many districts because some shopkeepers keep open the rest, in order to get a living keep open also. I started life in a retail shop, after leaving school, but I very soon left that for another sphere. That was in the days before the Thursday closing of shops. I was at the shop from 8.30 in the morning until 9.30 at night, and until 11 o'clock on Friday. I worked very late on the Saturday night and caught the last train at a quarter to 12. At that time nearly all the shopkeepers were anxious to close earlier, but they used to go to the doors of their shops to see whether their competitors were closing before they would close. That is why I would like to see this Bill passed, and not because it will affect the co-operative movement. I know that the spirit in the co-operative movement would not tolerate the opening of shops on Sunday. Our co-operative shops usually close about two hours earlier than the ordinary shop. Some time ago a co-operative society took over a very big business of private enterprise, which was not doing well, and the immediate effect was that those employed in that business had their hours reduced from 56 to 48, although the other shops kept open. It meant also an immediate rise of 10 per cent. to the employés, in order to bring them up to our co-operative conditions.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton need not fear that this Bill will legalise and extend the opening of shops on Sunday. It will restrict the opening in the specially exempted businesses from 10 or 12 hours on Sunday to two hours. My principle in life has been that if I cannot do all the good that I would like I do all the good that I can. This Bill will do a tremendous amount of good for hundreds of thousands of small shopkeepers and employés, and certainly we shall do no harm to anyone by passing the Bill. I hope that it will be passed into law this Session, or that in some succeeding Session it will have the special support of the Government and be put on to the Statute Book.

Mr. JAMES HALL: I very much regret to take up the time of the House, but I can assure hon. Members that my remarks will be very limited. There is one point that I wish to bring to the notice
of the House. I represent a constituency where a tremendous number of people gain their livelihood by street trading. If this Bill were carried into effect it would very seriously jeopardise their opportunity of getting their living under the present methods of working. I know, as most hon. Members know, that it is easy to adjust one's methods of living, but one does not in perspective realise all the possibilities of readjustment as well as one might. Under this Bill the street traders about Middlesex Street and Whitechapel generally will be up against great difficulty if the Bill becomes law. One point has been overlooked by those who have drafted the Bill, and that is that it may be very unfair to the small trader compared with the multiple shops.
With respect to Clause 9, it has been stated that as far as Jewish shopkeepers are concerned, they shall have the power to decide whether they will open on Saturday or Sunday. That alternative is not as reasonable and fair as it would appear. We have only to look at the jewellery shops opposite this House to realise how the law can be avoided, if one desires to do so, and one has sufficient capital to run more than one shop. There, we see that one jeweller's shop closes on the Thursday and the other on the Saturday, so that they are able to take advantage of both days. It is the decided opinion of the small traders in Whitechapel among the Jewish fraternity that this Bill is going to give an advantage to the multiple shopkeeper inasmuch as, having more than one shop, they can close one shop on the Saturday and another on the Sunday, whereas the one-man business is forced to decide on which day he will close. Therefore he is at a great disadvantage compared with his wealthier competitors. I wish to make that point clear, so that the Bill may be amended in Committee.

Question "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. MANDER: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I do not think it will be necessary for me to explain at any length the provisions of the Bill, as I think they are fairly well understood. It was introduced in 1924 by the late Mr. Frank Murrell and met with overwhelming support from every part of the House. Although to a very large extent there is general assent to the principle of the Bill there are some provisions that have not yet been agreed to by certain interests. Negotiations are going on, and the Trade Union Congress is paying close attention to the matter. I wish to make it clear that I am entirely friendly to those negotiations and that when the Bill reaches its Committee stage I shall be glad to accept any Amendments to bring it into line with the agreed proposals or, if thought better, to withdraw the Bill so that the other Bill may come forward in due course.
The object of the Bill is to give statutory authority to the decisions of joint industrial councils. Industrial councils in many cases are asking unanimously for these powers, and in particular one industrial council in my own constituency, the National Industrial Council of the Lock, Latch and Key Industry. Industrial councils complain that although agreement may have been come to by employers and employés through their organisations, yet because certain employers will not come into line, and persist in paying lower wages, the whole object of the agreement is upset. That must be contrary to the interests not only of the employers but the employed. It means that lower wages are paid and that the good employer is placed at a disadvantage by the bad employer, who will not toe the line and rise to the agreed standards of the trade. The principles of the Bill are that the Minister should take the initiative in setting up joint industrial councils wherever possible and that after receiving the agreements of the different councils he should give them the power of law. I ask that the Bill may be allowed to go through, so that it may be carefully considered in Committee and brought into line with the result of the negotiations in which hon. Members opposite are interested.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to second the motion.

Mr. HAYDAY: I hope the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr.-
Mander) will agree to withdraw this Bill. I know that he has worked most assiduously on this matter and that the Bill is on the lines of the Measure introduced a few years ago with the sanction of the trade unionists of the country. Since then there has been an attempt to secure an agreed Bill.

Mr. MANDER: The horn. Member for Nottingham West (Mr. Hayday) was not in the House when I made my speech. May I repeat what I said? I referred to the fact that negotiations are going on and I said that I was entirely friendly to those negotiations, and that when the Bill gets into Committee I will gladly accept Amendments to bring this Bill into line with his ideas, or if that is impossible, to withdraw the Bill in order to make way for the Measure in which I know the hon. Member is interested. I do not think I can go further to meet him in this matter.

Mr. HAYDAY: We have just reached an agreement in regard to this question; and there are some provisions in this Bill which differ from the Measure which we hope to introduce shortly into the House as an agreed Measure. The difficulty is that if this Bill gets a Second Beading and goes to a Committee it would be somewhat difficult to alter it in so substantial a manner as to meet the fundamental changes which we desire to introduce. The lines of the proposed measure have been finally accepted by the industrialists of the country. It has been referred to the Association of Joint Industrial Councils, which is composed of representatives of workmen and employers, and they phoned through yesterday saying that they were in complete agreement with the proposals submitted to them. Steps will therefore be immediately taken to put the agreement in the form of a Bill. There are one or two points upon which the Bill will differ from the present Measure. I know that the hon. Member is quite as anxious as we are in this matter. We want to get the support of the Government, no matter what it may be, and we are more likely to receive that support and assistance if we introduce a Measure which has the complete agreement of employers and employed on the Joint Industrial Council. It is much easier to get a Bill through this House if we have an agreement,
and in view of the limited time at our disposal it is hardly likely that any Bill given a Second Beading to-day will have much chance of getting on the Statute Book during this Session.
The present position of trade unions is left undisturbed in this Bill, as it is in our proposed Measure. The operation of this Bill is restricted to agreements made by industrial councils. The agreement which has been arrived at between the representatives of employers and workmen proposes to make agreements apply not only to the industrial councils but also to any other negotiating machinery now operating. That is an important difference. The proposed Bill will have a much larger scope. There are many agreements operating for wage fixing purposes in the industries of the country, and it is felt that apart from the Joint Industrial Councils that this other machinery which exists should be brought within the operation of any Bill which legalises a voluntary agreement. If such a Bill as that could find its way on to the Statute Book it would be of inestimable value and importance in making these arrangements, and we should be able to enforce them against recalcitrant employers, who might be inclined to break away from any national agreement.
The present Bill places in the hands of the Minister of Labour the power to vary an agreement, the discretion is entirely in the hands of the Minister. The suggestion in the agreed Bill does not rule out the possibility of modification, but it desires to ensure that such modifications shall only be made when all the parties to the agreement have been consulted and have given their consent. There are many other reasons one could give for suggesting that this Bill should be withdrawn in favour of the agreed Bill, but that is my main reason. For a number of years this question has been the subject of controversy in the industrial field, and it has been somewhat difficult to compose differing ideas and opinions. We have now reached a stage when there is complete agreement between the parties who desire this form of legislation. They desire to extend it outside industrial councils. If this Bill receives a Second Reading, it might be that we should be precluded from moving these fundamental Amendments because of the
Title. It might be held that they were outside the Title of the Bill.

Mr. MANDER: In that case I would withdraw the Bill.

Mr. HAYDAY: I am much obliged to the hon. Member, and I should like to thank him—

Mr. MANDER: I meant that in case any Amendments which it might be desired to move were outside the Title of the Bill I would withdraw it.

Mr. HAYDAY: If this Bill is given a Second Reading and goes to a Committee upstairs, it might prejudice and jeopardise the passing of an agreed Bill, upon which there is complete understanding between organised employers and organised workmen. That Bill being upstairs would create a difficulty and the agreed Bill would not have the same measure of support. While appreciating the past efforts of the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading—he has from time to time been in communication with the Joint Industrial Councils representatives and with the Trades Union Congress—we do feel that we could almost at once get another agreed Bill introduced, and that we could by common consent of the House get facilities granted for the speedy passage of that Bill.

Mr. MANDER: Directly the hon. Member introduces his Bill and it receives a First Reading I will withdraw the present Bill.

Mr. HAYDAY: The hon. Member must pardon me. It is said that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." I am sure the hon. Member would not like complications to arise from criticisms of his Bill by employers' and workmen's representatives such as would spoil its possibilities and at the same time retard the facilities for an agreed Measure. I
cannot imagine any Government saying, upon the introduction of a second Bill dealing with a subject which in part is dealt with by another Bill, "Very well we accept the other Bill." I ask the hon. Member to give the weight that is due to these great organisations outside. They have been discussing the matter for two or three years and have arrived at absolute unanimity on the matter. The hon. Member might take my assurance on that point. He in turn might ask why I should not take his assurance. He says, "As soon as you get an agreed Bill I shall stand back." I speak authoritatively on this matter, as representing the association of industrial councils outside and the great organisations of employers who already have wage-fixing machinery. I, therefore, appeal to the hon. Member not to proceed further with this Bill.

Mr. MANDER: Can the hon. Gentleman assure me that the Bill to which he refers will be introduced before Whitsuntide? There has been much delay over this matter. I have been told so often that agreement has been reached and that a Bill is coming forward soon, that I am naturally a little bit suspicious, and I am not anxious to lose my Bill until I am absolutely certain that a new Bill is ready and will be presented within a very limited period of time.

Mr. HAYDAY: As to time and facilities we must negotiate, but I have here the completed subject matter of the new Bill, the draft proposals, not the draft Bill. Immediately I get a final word of acceptance from the Association of Industrial Councils—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present—

The House was adjourned at Three Minutes after One o'Clock, until Monday next, 11th May.